Obama Still Killing Jobs, Atlas is not Hiring

The employment statistics released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for August 2012 show that Obama is still killing jobs and causing Americans to lose hope and drop out of the labor force.  The household survey employment statistics without seasonal adjustments with comparisons to various months going back to January 2000 are shown in the following table:

As usual, the number of missing jobs is calculated assuming that as many people now would want jobs as did in January 2000, when good jobs were plentiful, if government policies were not reducing employment.  The population of 16 and older non-institutionalized people grew by 212,000 people in August.  It is expected that 67.49% of these new potential workers would want jobs if good jobs were available.  This means to keep up with the population growth, 143,079 new jobs needed to be added in August compared to July.  Instead, 568,000 fewer people were employed in August.  This is a disaster, yet the normal unemployment rate went down!  As I have pointed out over the last two and a half years, this number is virtually meaningless when the jobs situation has long been awful.  What we should do to look for any possible progress in creating jobs is compare the same month employment and better yet missing jobs numbers for the same month a year ago and two years ago, since these numbers are not seasonally adjusted.  Much like the unemployment percentage, long recessions/depressions cause the seasonal adjustments to become dubious.  The missing jobs numbers are plotted below.

We find that in August 2012, there are 270,000 more missing jobs now than there were one year ago in August 2011.  Comparing to August 2010, the missing jobs number has increased even more to 1,050,000 more missing jobs.  According to Obama and Biden this is turning the corner on job creation.  Strangely, they portray this as a good thing justifying their being re-elected.  I suspect they live in an alternative universe in which everything bad is thought to be good.  That would explain why they are such committed socialists.

So, the Obama/Democrat jobs policies increased the actual number of missing jobs by more than 1 million over the last two years of what they call jobs recovery.  The real unemployment rate is 13.3%, rather than the misleading 8.1% they are claiming.  They love to claim that they have created jobs every month for many months, but do not point out that with a growing population, jobs have to be created simply to tread water.  As we see in comparing the new August data with the prior two year August data sets, they are not treading water, but drowning.

In August 2011, white people had an unemployment rate of 7.9%, which has now dropped to 7.2%.  But, this is because the labor force participation rate for whites fell from 64.8% to 64.0%, not because relatively more whites are employed.  The Hispanic labor force participation rate is higher than that for whites and fell by less from August 2011 to August 2012, from 66.7% to 66.1%.  Their unemployment rate fell from 11.1% to 10.1%, again substantially because the participation rate fell.  Black unemployment fell in the year from 17.0% to 14.5% and their low participation rate fell the least from 62.0% to 61.7%.  Blacks are the only group that is better off now than they were in August 2011, though their unemployment rates are still much the higher compared to those of Hispanics and whites.

The following employment to population ratio chart is another way to see the essential stagnation of the jobs recovery over the last couple of years despite the claims by this most deception administration of a jobs recovery.  This shows that this ratio has been flat at a very low rate since at least October of 2009.  The otherworldly claims of a job recovery by the Obama administration are completely and utterly false and maliciously misleading.  We see that the dot.com recession led to a decrease in the jobs to population ratio which continued until mid-2003, followed by a slow and partial recovery that ended at the start of 2007.  The government fueled and even required sub-prime mortgage collapse was finally arrested about October 2009, but there has been jobs stagnation since.  We are now very close to a three-year period of jobs stagnation under Obama on the heels of a deep recession.

This is hardly surprising given Obama's determined efforts to make business less profitable and more risky, not to mention his efforts to make businessmen look dishonorable.  Well, businessmen decided they would not take this nonsense and they have been on a serious slowdown strike since.  Atlas has at least removed the weighty world from his shoulders and ceased to carry it up the hill of progress.  Atlas has Shrugged, even if he was too responsible to simply drop the world.   For now, he is biding his time in hopes that Obama will be given his walking papers in the November election.  If Obama is removed, Atlas will put the world back on his shoulder and move our economy forward again, as the American Atlas has for decades and even centuries.  If Obama is re-elected, stagnation will continue and our economy will soon be unable to support the growing weight of Medicare, Medicaid, ObamaUncaringTax, Social Security, and the payment of interest on the debt.  Big government will be doomed to collapse.

Democrat Party -- The Party of the Welcoming Big Pre-Tents

Jon Stewart and his crew at the Daily Show actually did some interesting journalism while at the Democratic National Convention (DNC).  See the segment he did on Tolerance here.  DNC delegates and attendees were interviewed and each said that the Democratic Party was the party of the big tent with room for everyone, until they were asked for exceptions.

One young white man at the DNC says that everyone is welcome, "Except unless you own a corporation, or if you’re a hunter, a gun owner, white males."  Yes, though he seemed to feel at home in the Party, he actually excluded white males, with no exceptions.

So let us examine how many Americans are unwelcome in the Democrat Party by his prescription:

• Corporation Owners:  Corporations are owned by their shareholders.  How many Americans own shares in corporations?  A study in 2005 reported that about half of all American households owned stock due to the growth of 401(k) retirement plans.  This is about 57 million households in America.  Of course, many university endowments and union pension funds are also heavily invested in stocks, so university faculty and staff and union members are all very dependent upon the institution they belong to making money on their stock ownership.  In addition, many churches have investments in stock, as do many charitable foundations.  Now even if we exclude all those who are dependent in some way on stock ownership and only count those who actually own a stock or an investment vehicle that owns a stock, the young man has excluded at least half of all Americans, including many millions of women.  In truth, he has just expressed a desire to ex-communicate many millions of women who actually are Democrats.
• Hunters and Gun Owners:  It is estimated that about 52 million households in America have at least one gun.  Gallup reported a poll in October 2011 that found that 47% of American households had a gun on their property.  55% of Republican households had a gun according to this poll, while a sharp recent increase brought the percentage of Democrat households with guns up to 40%.  The young man wants again to make many Democrats unwelcome in his party.  There may be additional bow hunters or trappers who do not own a gun, who are excluded, but I am sure the number is relatively small.
• White Males:  This is a small minority of voting eligible Americans.  According to the 2010 Census, males are 49.2% of the population.  The white population is 63.7% of the population, though the separately grouped Hispanic/Latino population of 16.3% includes many who also think of themselves as white.  If we take the more restrictive 63.7% as white and assume that 49.2% of them are male, then the white male population to be excluded from the Democrat Party is 31.3% of the population.  I expect the Republicans would not be too upset if that complete block of 31.3% of the population voted for them.

While there is very considerable overlap in these three excluded groups, it is also clear that the set of voters who fall into these three excluded groups is much more than half the voting population.  This is especially true since the voting turnout among whites is considerably higher than it is for Black Americans or for Hispanic/Latino Americans.

Virtually every other person interviewed mentioned that they excluded gun owners.  Many of them, who were mostly females, made disparaging remarks about males.  Comments about the owners of businesses were less common.  But even if the Democrat Party delegates were only to exclude gun owners and white males, the party would become a consistent out-of-power party.  The party that likes to claim inclusion and to be the Big Tent party, is really the party of Big Pretense.  In a punning mode, we might call them the party of the Big Pre-Tents.

In a discussion with my oldest daughter recently, I pointed out that it is becoming alarming that the population of college students is approaching 60% female.  I claimed that a good part of the reason for this is that males have been made to feel less than welcome by the education system.  She scoffed at this idea, saying that males just make poor students.  But in the context of the many male-negative comments made by the Democrat Party stalwarts and given the fact that educators are predominantly Democrats, it is entirely unlikely that male students are finding themselves in a welcoming environment when they are in the formal education system.  In the government-run and socialist union-dominated public schools through high school, they are in an unfriendly leftist environment.  Then those who do go off to college often drop out as they find the radical left wing beliefs there incompatible with their interests and with their understanding of the practical and real world.

The attitudes of the committed leftists in control of our education system on the education of American males, particularly white males, are certainly deleterious.  Males want to believe that they are the heroic protectors of women and children and this greatly motivates them to try to work and learn so that they can fill this role.  When the Democrat-dominated education system portrays them, especially white males, as brutes, unfeeling cads, and privileged evil-doing masters at every turn, this is destructive.  Many are fleeing the education battlefield for more peaceful and nurturing pastures where they are less often the victims of discrimination.

The Backfiring Democrat Santa Analogy

Former Ohio Governor Ted Strickland when speaking at the Democrat National Convention (DNC) in Charlotte said that if Romney were Santa he would "fire the reindeer and outsource the elves."  Since Romney is a candidate for the presidency, it appears that Strickland thinks the President has a job analogous to that of Santa.  This does seem to be very compatible with the Welfare State mentality of the Democrats.

According to the Democrats and their DNC promotional video, we all belong to the Government.  The head of the Government is the President, who is supposed to be Santa.  This is clearly Government for Children, not for adults who believe their General Welfare is only served when the Government protects their equal, sovereign individual rights.  Santa, or the President, is supposed to have many, many reindeer employees, which is code for many government workers who are supposed to be no brighter than reindeer and only work a small portion of the year.  Ideally, one night each year.  Government is not supposed to be efficient.

The elves are the private sector producers who are heavily taxed and assigned brutal mandated hours of unpaid work for the government, or Santa, to produce the gifts to be given to the Children on Christmas Day.  The gift receivers are deceptively called children to earn our unqualified love, but they are really disguised special interests such as the labor unions, government employee reindeer, green energy companies, trial lawyers, tax lawyers and accountants, and radical anti-human environmentalists, and the like.  Santa Obama redistributes the wealth created by the elves to these special interests so fast that he has just sent the national debt soaring past $16 trillion dollars.  When interest rates on the national debt return to long-term averages, the interest on the debt will exceed the cost of Medicare!  No matter how much a future Santa may want to take from the elves in taxes, he will not be able to take enough to pay the interest, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security costs even if he spends nothing on any other Government program.

The elves are not actually outsourced.  It is their jobs that are outsourced.  Because Santa, really the President and the Democrats, has expanded Government gift-giving, or spending, from 18% of the economy to 25% of the economy, the elves who are in the private sector have been deprived of the means to grow the economy at a rate to match that of the 39% growth of Government spending.  As a result, many are unable to compete with foreign elves whose productive organizations pay lower taxes and may have fewer and less expensive regulatory mandates.  Other private sector elves are not able to consume as much as they used to, so fewer elves are needed in jobs. Elves have become unemployed in droves.  There are fewer elves with jobs now than when the present Santa became Santa.

What is worse, the population of elves and reindeer has been growing and there are about 3 million more elves and reindeer a year.  This means that the sum of elves and reindeer need about 2 million new jobs each year so that those who want to have jobs will have them.  Over a three year period they need 6 million jobs just to keep up with the population growth of elves and reindeer.  Of course, many of the out-of-work elves of three years ago also want to have jobs again.

Meanwhile, Santa is boasting that he has created 4.5 million new jobs since the depths of a recession reached three years ago.  He counts all the reindeer jobs and all the elf jobs as jobs he has created.  Some of the elves say that they created their businesses, but the Santa President says that they did not.  He did, because he creates all jobs, even the jobs of self-employed elves.  Many of the 4.5 million jobs, actually all of them in net, are due to increased self-employment by elves.

The Santa President is a very arrogant man.  He has a horde of black shirt special interest comrades who want his rules strictly enforced, which are too complicated for the reindeer and the elves to understand.  His rules also change very quickly.  He only likes those who vote for him and give him big presents in tribute for his ruling over them.  This Santa gives reindeer favors and agrees to favor or not to hurt certain elves if they give him tribute.

Most of the elves are given a lump of coal at Christmas time and no other gifts.  Because the President Santa is not allowing coal to be used for energy, coal is an even worse Christmas present than it used to be.  President Santa also hogs huge areas of land and all offshore areas and will not allow elves to get oil and gas in his private reserves.  The cost of gasoline has more than doubled under this Santa, so the elves are having trouble driving to work, if they have any work.  Santa forces the elves to turn their food corn into ethanol and mix it with gasoline, despite knowing that this makes food more expensive, creates no energy, and increases pollution.  The elves are finding energy to be more and more expensive and more and more unreliable, so their productivity in the private sector is suffering and the 5% growth they used to have has been replaced with 1% growth.

The elves' homes are colder in the winter and warmer in the summer.  Their homes are also worth about 40% less than they used to be.  Many elves owe more on their mortgages for their homes than their homes are worth.  Many of the elves were supposed to retire soon, but can no longer afford to retire.  Elves have less income now than they did when the Santa became Santa.  More and more elves are angry at Santa.  Santa has violated Christmas and the entrepreneurial spirit of plenty that the industrious elves of our land once created.

Santa Obama is about to be replaced by President Romney, who the elves hope will be less a Santa and more of a protector of individual rights so that the elves will be able to choose their own values more in the private sector and can work to create very big pies and other goodies.  They do not want to have to give so many of their pies and goodies to the Santa President so they can improve their own lives.  Santa Obama was a rabble-rouser and a special interest lawyer before he became Santa.  The future President Romney was a elf who made many pies and goodies himself and claims to like busy elves.  It is highly unlikely he will be as bad a Scrooge as the present pretend Santa has proven to be.

Celebrate Atlas Shrugged!

Atlas Shrugged continues to be one of the most important books ever written.  It is definitely the most important book I ever read, especially in terms of its effects upon my life.  When I read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead before it, I had the feeling that for once some of the most noble, heroic, and benevolent ideals that I held to be true and central to my character were held by someone else.

I began reading Ayn Rand as a senior in high school, beginning with The Fountainhead and then Atlas Shrugged.  That summer of 1965, while working out of Ardmore, OK and Enid, OK on oil exploration crews, I read all of Ayn Rand's non-fiction books to that time and her newsletter with all the back issues.  I thought this very good preparation for my next adventure as a freshman at Brown University.

I found a philosophy and a worldview which was similar to much of my own, but much more completely developed.  I had always thought man should be moral and heroic.  I had always thought that one should work very diligently to be rational and emotions were properly controlled by and educated by one's rational decisions.  I had understood that very limited government was the only government compatible with reason, the sovereign rights of the individual, and the ability of man to apply his rational faculty to improving life for man on Earth.  I had already understood that big government was essentially a denial of human individuality.

I had long understood that some principles were worth fighting for and, if necessary, dying for.  My father was a naval aviator and was always a heroic presence in my life.  So too were many of our nation's heroes of the French and Indian War, the American Revolution, the War with the Barbary Pirates, the Mexican War, the Civil War, some of the Indian Wars (sometimes the Indians too), WWI, WWII, and the Korean War.  Those principles worth fighting for were worthily found in our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution, which were written by wise and good men.  So too we had many heroes who were inventors and scientists.  I had already understood that the businessman was usually honorably offering goods and services to others in voluntary trade to their mutual benefit.  As such, many businessmen were heroically making human life richer, more secure, and better day after day.  One of the most important things Ayn Rand and I had in common was the fact that we were both human mind and hero worshipers.

Finally, in the summer and fall of 1964, I had realized that many of the teachings of Christianity were simply wrong.  I was not yet at the point of concluding that there was no reason to believe in God, but I was sure that any existent God was better than the Christian God. After reading Rand's non-fiction work, I came to the conclusion that I had no evidence for the existence of any god and that I really had no need for a god.

Basically, when I read Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, I had found someone who thought along pathways similar enough to mine that her entire philosophy was useful to me in understanding my world.  She had thought about the issues important to me much longer than I had and she was capable of guiding me to other issues that I needed to think about.

It turns out that 2 September has a special significance for those of us who love Atlas Shrugged.  Let me repeat a post below that I wrote on 2 September 2010, while noting that it is now 66 years since she started writing it and 55 years since its publication:

On September 2, 1946, Ayn Rand began writing Atlas Shrugged and she finished her great novel in time for publication in 1957.  Throughout the novel, September 2 is the date of a number of events:

• In the opening scene of the novel, a bum asking Eddie Willers for a handout, asks "Who is John Galt?"  This and the way it was asked bother Eddie.  As he walks through NYC, he is also bothered by the gigantic calendar hanging from a public tower and announcing the date as September 2.    
• On that date, Hank Rearden and Dagny Taggart decide to take a vacation together.  On that vacation they discover an abandoned motor that should have revolutionized the use of energy in the world.
• Francisco D'Anconia makes his speech on money on September 2.  He proclaims money to be the tool of free trade and the result of noble effort, not the root of evil.  Those who call money evil choose to replace its use with the force of the gun.
• D'Anconia Copper is nationalized on 2 September, but the date on the calendar is replaced by "Brother, you asked for it!"

So, on this day of 2 September 2010, let us give thanks to Ayn Rand for her incredibly dedicated effort in writing this path-breaking novel we are finding so important in our lives 53 years after its publication date and 64 years after she started it on 2 September 1946.  This should be a day celebrated much as Thanksgiving Day is celebrated, but without any religious overtones, as a day to respect the creativity and productivity of all the heroic men and women that Ayn Rand's heroic novel commemorates.  At the top of our list of respected heroes and heroines, we should recognize Ayn Rand herself.

Government Gone Wild on the National Debt and Liabilities

Daniel J. Mitchell of the Cato Institute just drew my attention to this excellent video created by Government Gone Wild.  Earlier videos from Government Gone Wild that I have seen have been excellent also, which is an assessment with which Daniel Mitchell agrees.

State Unemployment and Election Consequences

Looking at state unemployment percentages and their changes over the last year for the purpose of trying to envision the effect upon the November presidential election is difficult.  This is because the unemployment percentages become meaningless due to people dropping out of the workforce in this interminable Great Socialist Recession.  We also know the seasonal adjustments are suspect due to unusual effects in this very long jobs recession.  Fortunately, the one really useful table for dealing with election effects in the Bureau of Labor Statistics State Unemployment Report based on July 2012 data is Table 4.  This table provides Labor Force Data without Seasonal Adjustment.  Unfortunately real employment numbers are not given, but the workforce number is very important in its own right.

Clearly, the people of a state whose civilian labor force is shrinking are likely to feel as their state economy is hurting and are likely by now to hold this against Obama.  A shrinking workforce means that the sum of the people employed or considered by the BLS to be actively seeking work has become smaller in the time from July 2011 to July 2012 in Table 4.  If the number is shrinking, then employment is not growing and/or discouraged people have given up looking for work.  Even when a workforce is growing, this is not necessarily adequate growth for a growing population.  We have to remember that from 2000 to 2010, the Census told us that the population grew by 1.0% a year.  In normal times, this would mean that unless employment grew by 1% a year, unemployment would go up.

From July 2011 to July 2012, the workforce actually contracted in the following states:

Alabama

Arizona

Connecticut

Hawaii

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Missouri

Nevada
New Mexico, leaning to Obama
Ohio
Oregon, leaning to Obama

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

The people of these states should be furious at what Obama and the Democrats have done to the economy to keep it from recovering from the recession.  Of course the people of Connecticut and Hawaii do not have nearly enough sense to be furious, but there should be numerous people in the other states who will be as they think more and more about how miserable they are in this never-ending recession.  The states in red are pretty certain for Romney, while those in blue are certain for Obama.  The other states in black should be feeling a substantial desire to turn to Romney to help end their woes as the people of those states think more a and more about who they will vote for in November.  Iowa, Ohio, and Nevada are generally thought to be swing states in the election, while New Mexico and Oregon are thought to be leaning to Obama, but may prove unstable with time and may require Obama to spend some time campaigning in them so he will not lose them.

Among the swing states and those which may not be solid for either candidate presently which failed to increase their workforce by 1% to keep up with the average national population growth are these states with the percentage increase in the workforce in the last year:

Colorado, 0.4%
Florida, 0.5%
Maine, leaning to Obama, 0.9%
Michigan, 0.3%
Minnesota, leaning to Obama, 0.1%
New Hampshire, 0.3%
North Carolina, 0.2%
Virginia, 0.9%
Wisconsin, 0.3%

Only Maine and Virginia managed to generate workforce growth above 0.5%.  The average workforce growth for these critical electoral vote states was only 0.43%.

We find that every one of  the swing states or states that are tenuous now for Obama is on one of these two lists.  This presents a strong opportunity for the Romney-Ryan ticket to build its electoral vote count enough to win the election.  In fact, the people of these states will have to be very disappointingly unobservant if they do not turn strongly toward the pro-private sector Republican ticket with its interest in strong businesses, many more jobs, and a lower cost of living.  Romney could well win Iowa, Nevada, Ohio, Colorado, Florida, Michigan, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Virginia, and Wisconsin based on their workforce weakness over the last year.  This would give Romney a 317 to 221 electoral vote win over Obama.  This is close to my 25 June prediction here.

More Obama Misdirection in Campaign Ad

This last weekend, I saw an Obama ad actually endorsed by him that sought to push Romney to release more tax returns and made the claim that Romney "paid only 14% in taxes -- probably less than you."  I believe this was a fallacious and misleading claim, but PolitiFact.com ruled it true by ignoring the context of the ad with a giant switcheroo.

The Obama ad is a discussion of Romney's tax returns, which report on his income taxes.  One naturally assumes that the final statement by Obama that Romney probably paid less in taxes than you means that he probably paid less than you in income taxes.  So, let us discuss the truth of Obama's claim based on income taxes reported on the income tax forms Obama is demanding Romney add to those already released.

I was stunned because most Americans who pay any attention to politics, government, and the economy are well aware that about 46 - 48% of Americans pay no income tax at all.  Immediately this would make one think it is unlikely that half of Americans are paying 14% in taxes on their Adjusted Gross Income (AGI).  In fact in 2011, Romney paid a 15.37% average effective tax rate on his AGI and he claims he paid 13% or more in every one of the last ten years.  This contradicts Biden's claim that he often paid no taxes in this period of time.  Apparently, Biden's unnamed source was rather impeachable, as is Biden's intellect.

The median household income in 2010 was $47,022.  According to Table 3.4 of an IRS study of 2010 Individual Income Tax Returns, broken down by tax brackets, one can estimate an upper bound on the average effective tax rate on AGI for a taxpayer with median income.  142.89 million individual tax returns were filed in 2010, we can examine when we reach half this number of tax returns (71,446,026 returns) as we work down the column in the table of tax returns by margin tax rate.  Including all returns with a marginal tax rate of 10% or less, we have accounted for 63,744,030 returns.  The next group in the table is 42,321,591 returns in the 15% marginal tax bracket without capital gains.  Adding this to the lower tax brackets takes us way over the mid-point number on the returns of 71.45 million to 106.07 million returns.  The median return is clearly among the first one-fifth of the returns in this large group of returns.  Nonetheless, the average effective tax for this entire 15% marginal tax rate bracket group is only 5.1% of AGI.  The 10% tax bracket that brought us close to the median return paid an average tax of only 0.7%, so it is likely that the median return paid substantially less than 5.1% of AGI!

So, the Obama ad claim that you probably paid more taxes than Romney is false.  But no, according to PolitiFact.com, the Obama claim is true.  How do they substantiate this claim?  Well they decide that Obama, the context of the remainder of the ad notwithstanding, was talking about the sum of income and payroll taxes.  Of course, they choose not to add in property taxes because that is not something the Democrats wish to consider when they talk about comparing the taxes of the rich and the median person.  According to our Democrat politicians, the Medicare and Social Security money extracted from our paychecks by unpaid tax collecting employers goes into a lock box and is paid back to us when we retire or reach age 65.  They like to call it an insurance premium which will lead to payouts to us in retirement which scale in accordance with the amount of premiums we paid in.  But in this context it is convenient to forget all that and treat this payroll extraction as general tax money and forget that Romney gets a worse deal in payback even than the median taxpayer does from these extractions.

Now most people have an employer who according to the government pays half of the Medicare tax and, generally, half of the Social Security tax.  So, the employee's share of Medicare is 1.45% and his usual share of Social Security, before the recent 2% reduction of limited duration, was 6.2%.  Adding these together would produce an upper bound average tax payment on AGI of 12.75% in normal times, but of only 10.75% in 2011.  This is lower still than Romney's effective tax rate.

Oh, but wait.  The truth, always suppressed by Democrats otherwise, is that it is a fiction that the 6.2% for Social Security and the 1.45% for Medicare paid by the employer is really paid by the employer.  People who are self-employed pay it all and those who work for an employer are actually paid less by that amount because of this extraction.  That money would have been paid to the employee in the market for labor if it were not siphoned off by the government instead.  This is the argument of the Tax Policy Center of the liberal Brookings Institute.  As a result they add in both the employee's and the employer's extractions for Social Security and Medicare and claim that the median taxpayer probably does pay more tax than does Romney.

If the Democrat fiction on employer contributions to Social Security and Medicare were maintained, then Romney could claim his share of those payments as a shareholder in many companies with many employees and show that he paid a much, much larger tax due to his huge employer tax payments!  But it does not work that way.  Inventive approaches to issues are the province of Democrats only.  Republicans are usually too straightforward to make such arguments and if they did, the Progressive media would raise an incredible fuss!

We really ought to also remember that the many companies partially owned by Romney as a shareholder may have paid the world's highest corporate taxes on any profits they made.  They also spent a fortune on foolish laws, mandates, and regulations arising from local, state, and federal governments for vanishingly small or non-existent benefits for Americans generally.  More and more, these governments delight in moving the expenses of gifts to others, commonly to special interests, to the accounts of businesses in the private sector.  The governments are awash in red ink, or they would be if they were forced to do the kind of accounting that businesses are forced to do by governments.  So, they force businesses to pick up the tab more and more often without regard to the impact on lower profitability, less hiring, less capital investment, and more bankruptcies for businesses.  Not only does Romney pay out huge sums on his investment in many companies making these government mandated payments, but he also pays a capital gains tax on any money earned by him due to sales of appreciating stock.  Romney does much more than his fair share in supporting the cost of government.

A Fallacious Liberal Claim of Income Stagnation

Democrats like to make the claim that median U.S. worker income has been almost stagnant since 1980.  This is said to show that trickle-down, supply-side, or self-responsibility economics does not work for the median worker.  Only the rich benefit, they say.  Let us examine this claim.

It is true that between 1980 and 2005 the median worker income minus benefits increased a mere $700 from $25,000 in 1980.  This ignores the fact that benefits grew at a much faster rate than did worker compensation in the form of direct income.  It also ignores the fact that many more workers with incomes above the median are making much more money now than they were in 1980.  Average income went up much more than did median income.  In 1980, only 23% of all jobs were considered high paying professional jobs, while more than half of all new jobs since 1980 are high paying professional jobs.  If this were to continue into the future, more than half of all jobs in existence will become high paying professional jobs and the median income will climb sharply.  But as yet, the median job is not a high paying professional job.  But we should note that the stagnation in median income is not due to most new jobs being burger flipping.

There is further news indicating that the median income figures for all workers are hiding the important truth.  It turns out that both white men and white women in the workforce have had much higher income gains since 1980 than the reported all worker gain of 3%.  White men have gained in income by 15% and white women have gained by 75%!  Does this mean that non-white workers have lost income since 1980?  No, not at all.  Nonwhite men gained 16% in income.  Nonwhite women gained 62% in income.  Every one of the individual categories gained many times more than 3% in income since 1980!  The reason the median income for all workers barely increased was because the workforce came to be increasingly composed of nonwhites and white women whose median group incomes were below the median income of all workers in 1980.  Changing demographics is the explanation for the nearly stagnant median income minus benefit result.

The median income for white men rose from $30,700 to $35,200, moving most of their income distribution curve well above the total worker distribution curve median.  Nonwhite men increased their income from $19,300  to $22,300.  White women raised their incomes from $11,200 to $19,600, while nonwhite women raised theirs from $10,200 to $16,500.  Because the fraction of the population which is nonwhite is growing, part of the reason for their lower incomes is because the nonwhite men and women have lower median ages and therefore less job experience.  Younger people with less job experience generally earn less.

The fact that the median income of all workers has been essentially stagnant between 1980 and 2005 is not an indictment of supply-side economics or Reaganomics as the Democrats love to claim.  This is a result of the very large increase in the fraction of nonwhite workers in that period who have long had lower incomes than white males.  This rapidly growing nonwhite worker fraction also has a lower median age and therefore has less job experience.  The employed Hispanic population was the primary growth fraction of the employed in 2005 compared to 1980.  The fraction of white workers decreased by more than 6%, while the fraction of black workers went up about 7%.  The fraction of Hispanics increased by a factor of 2.43!

Between 1980 and 1990, the labor force participation rate for women grew rapidly before plateauing from then until 2005.  The labor force participation rate of men fell slightly from 1980 to 2005.  This also caused the fraction of workers in a lower earning group to increase.

Supply-side economics or Reaganomics was advanced as a method to raise all boats.  It performed as advertised, despite being applied in only a modest and half-hearted manner.  White female worker and nonwhite female worker income advanced sharply, 75% and 62%, respectively.  White male and nonwhite male incomes advanced less dramatically, but they still increased 15% and 16%, respectively, from 1980 to 2005.  We should all be reasonably happy with these results in the face of a rapidly changing demographics.

Government Centrally Planned Economy Continues to Kill Job Recovery

The July 2012 Bureau of Labor Statistics unemployment report of the Household Survey without any seasonal correction of data, revealed a loss of 76,000 jobs in July compared to June.  This was rarely reported in the mainstream media.  The nominal, though rather meaningless, unemployment rate went up from 8.43% to 8.56%.  The percentage of the population with jobs dropped to 58.81% from 58.89% in June.  The headline statistic reported by the mainstream media was that 163,000 jobs were added in July.  This was based on seasonally adjusted data from the Establishment report, but there are problems with the seasonal adjustments in this unprecedented recession and there are a record number of self-employed people these days since they cannot find jobs otherwise.  Many of those self-employed people decided in July that they were not really effectively employed any longer.  They had tried self-employment in desperation and failed in the uphill struggle with the Obama economy.  To take the fate of these people into account, we need to examine the Household Survey data, as I have been doing all along in this unprecedented and never-ending recession.

The number of missing jobs is calculated based on the employment workforce of January 2000 when many quality jobs were available and the unemployment rate was 4.04%.  The workforce then was 67.49% of the total non-institutional civilian working age population.  The number of missing jobs in July 2012 is slightly lower than it was in July 2011 by 256,000 jobs, but it is higher by 696,000 jobs than it was in the miserable month of July 2010!  In two years of supposed recovery the number of missing jobs has actually increased by almost 700,000.  This is not a real recovery.  It is all smoke and mirrors.  The percentage of missing jobs compared to those wanted went up from 12.74% in June to 12.86% in July.

Biomedical and diagnostics companies such as Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Stryker, Covidien, Abbot Labs, Qiagen, Invacare, GE, SurModics, WorldHeart Corp., the Cordis Div. of Johnson & Johnson, C. R. Bard, BioMerieux, Celera, Cardo Medical, Resetta Genomics, and Care Fusion are all laying off employees, many citing the 2.3% tax on all revenues, not profits, from biomedical devices and on clinical testing in ObamaCare, or more accurately, ObamaUncaringTax.

Defense companies are doing the same in anticipation of the large cut-backs in defense spending brought on by the sequestering of defense funds as the Democrat Senate has failed to produce a budget in the entire presidency of Obama, or over 1203 days or 3.3 years.  This budget is required by law for very good reasons, but this Senate is lawless.  A recent study by George Mason University scholars calculates that the sequester cut-backs in military equipment purchases and R&D will result in the loss of about 1 million jobs.  Because the reduction in funds begins on 2 January 2013 and the WARN Act requires companies making large layoffs to give employees 60 days notice, these reductions will substantially have to occur by 3 November 2012.  Identifying the victims and processing such large numbers of lay-offs takes a massive amount of management time and hurts productivity.  The best way to handle such a process is to begin paring employees early, which many of these companies have been and continue to do.  Most of these cuts have nonetheless not yet been announced or made.

The Obama and EPA war on fossil fuels also is killing jobs.  Coal mines are closing and coal-fired electric power plants are closing.  Some railroad jobs will be lost as a result.  Because electricity costs are going up substantially as a result of losing low-cost coal-fired power plants and the mandates for very expensive wind and solar power, many businesses have higher costs and cannot hire added employees or are losing those they had.  The Obama restrictions on offshore and federal lands drilling and exploration for oil have caused many potential jobs to be lost in those activities.  America has an incredible portion of the world supply of coal, oil, and natural gas.  Feeder and long-distance oil pipelines have also not been built, which would have provided many jobs.  Refinery expansions and new refineries are badly needed, but regulations make such investments very hard to make.  This is another lost opportunity and results in higher fuel costs for transportation and higher plastic costs as well.  These higher costs inhibit the growth of many companies and add to reductions in consumer disposable income.  This senseless Obama vendetta has cost Americans many, many jobs.

Good government does not steal so much money and other resources from the productive private sector.  Good government is minimal government and serves only to protect the sovereign rights of the individual to life, liberty, property, the ownership of one's own mind, body, and labor, and the pursuit of happiness.  Such legitimate government makes way so that a robust private sector can produce a cornucopia of jobs, products, services, and ideas.  The illegitimate Obama government is greatly inhibiting the private sector and preventing the private sector from generating this abundance of wealth.  The role of government in producing jobs is simply to get out of the way.  That is a fact the Democrat Socialists will never understand.  If you want jobs and a healthy economy, this Obama administration and this Democrat Senate must be dismantled as a result of the November election.

Court Thwarts ObamaCare Attack on Religion

A judge, John L. Kane, of the U.S. District Court of Colorado issued an injunction against the rules of the Obama administration that the health care payment plans under ObamaCare must provide for contraceptives.  The Newland family owns the Colorado company Hercules Industries, which manufactures HVAC equipment and materials.  They are a Catholic family and their company has several hundred employees to which they will have to supply Obama administration approved health care payment plans.  They maintain that this violates their religious freedom and is in clear violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.  The Jimmy Carter appointed judge ruled that the Newland family case was sufficiently good that the injunction against enforcement by Obama's administration should be granted until the courts make a ruling in the case.

In the Citizens United v. FEC Supreme Court ruling, the right of individuals in a corporate association to freedom of speech was maintained.  The Obama administration had claimed that freely associated people in commercial activities lost their freedom of speech.  The Obama administration is now saying that people associated in a commercial activity lose their freedom of conscience or religious freedom.  I do not think that claim will hold up any better with the Supreme Court than did their loss of another 1st Amendment right to free speech.

Read more at NetRightDaily.com: http://netrightdaily.com/2012/08/federal-judge-in-colorado-issues-first-injunction-against-hhs-mandate-expect-more-to-come/#ixzz22MfehyLP

To be clear, I have nothing whatsoever against the use of contraceptives.  But people who do should not be forced by government to violate their own moral values.  Even religious ideas that I believe are irrational must not be threatened by government, if we are to maintain freedom of conscience and the freedom to independent thought.

Pisaturo: Obama Invests in People to Own Them

Ron Pisaturo has just made an excellent post entitled Policies of Obama Match His Socialist Rhetoric.  The very best part of this post is the final paragraphs where he discusses Obama's idea of investing in people so that government will own the productivity of the most productive Americans:

When Obama speaks of the government ‘investing’, he is of course perverting the meaning of the word; he is really spending wealth confiscated from others. But there is a sinister way in which his use of the word “investing’ is revealing and apt: the government is ‘investing’ in contrast to ‘lending’. When a creditor makes a loan, the creditor obtains a promise to repay the loan with interest; in contrast, when an investor makes an investment, the investor obtains ownership and a share of the profits.

Since, according to Obama, the government ‘invests’ in you—by paying for your schooling, etc.—the government expects not a repayment of a loan to you, but rather a share of the profits in you. For the most productive among us, that share is now more than half of all that you make; and that share is growing as the government’s socialist/fascist agenda expands. Moreover, the government—in keeping with the fascist version of socialism—expects in effect to own the majority of ‘voting stock’ in the ‘business’ of your life, deciding what you must or must not produce, whom you must hire or fire or work for, to whom you must sell, where you must and must not be located, and what methods of production you must and must not use. That is, it is ‘society’, not you, that owns your productive life.

Paradoxically, Obama and other Leftist government officials have recently been pushing to forgive loans to students for college and graduate school; such loans now total a trillion dollars. But if education via government funding is so crucial to an individual’s success, as Obama claims, why is the government willing to let students get off without paying? The answer is that student loans are not socialist/fascist enough for the Left. These loans entail too much individual choice (to request the loan), individual responsibility (to repay the loan), and individual justice (to be responsible to repay only one’s own loan and not the loans to others).

The Leftists think the government can afford to forgive student loans, because the government still has its student ‘investments’. Whenever any particular student in public elementary school or high school—or, for that matter, any particular individual who does not even go to public school—becomes very successful, the socialist/fascist government can claim its lion’s share of the profit on that successful ‘investment’ by taxing that individual’s wealth. One such very successful investment can pay for thousands of failures.

Obama wants to make even more ‘investments’ in us that we can’t refuse. His brazen socialist/fascist rhetoric is part of a campaign for even more ownership of Americans.

These are very perceptive comments and they help us to see deep into the evil mind and heart of the socialist beast that fully intends to be our slave-master.  When Obama uses the word invest, he means it as in a commonly used sense from medieval times:  Obama is investing the castle, as in subjugating the castle.

Do we Americans want productive self-managing Americans to be subjected to work slavery, or do we still have some appreciation for hard work, achievement, and the right to earn a living?  Do we want Americans to either be dependent upon the government beast or to be slaves to the government beast?  Make no mistake -- Obama wants us all to be cast as members of either the dependent or the slave group.  It is unacceptably degrading to be either.

Somebody Else Built My Business!

Speaking in Roanoke, Virginia on Friday, Obama said:



Obama also said:

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me — because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t — look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.

 If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

My response:

Somebody else invested the start-up money to buy laboratory equipment.  Somebody else had an income of only $10,000 in all of year 1.  Somebody else paid for a high deductible health plan for myself, my wife, and my three daughters.  Somebody else worked 80-hour weeks.  Somebody else acted as an unpaid tax collector for the federal, state, and local governments.  Somebody else paid real estate taxes and personal property taxes on my laboratory facility and equipment.  Somebody else trained employee after employee.  Somebody else developed thousands of customized materials analysis plans to solve my customers materials problems.  Somebody else slept on a cot into the night to be around to start up one more analysis or two through the night.  Somebody else worked many a 36-hour stretch straight through to meet a deadline.  Somebody else wrote thousands of analytical reports.

Somebody else paid my employees and only took their own pay when income was sufficient to provide it.  Somebody else guaranteed the laboratory lease.  Somebody else took the risk of being sent to jail for the possible violation of some one of thousands of regulations that cannot all be known and understood by any small business owner.  Someone else had to fire the occasional mistaken hire who could not perform his job.  Someone else went with less than a week of vacation time year after year after year.  Someone else worked weekend and holiday after weekend and holiday.

I sure am grateful to that Somebldy Else, even if I was mistaken in thinking it was me.  Now that I know otherwise, I am asking that Somebody Else to step forward and be acknowledged.

But, one thing I am really certain about is this:  I do not owe governments a penny more than they have already received from me and my business.  The first 30% of their spending used on legitimate government functions was worth my while paying, but the remainder was a giant rip-off.  Any penny more that I give government today is money they use to make my life and my family's lives just that much harder.  Much of that money is actually spent to violate more and more of our sovereign individual rights.

It is a good thing that Obama is so blatantly stating what this upcoming election is really about.  He is right that his vision of how our society and our government should operate is very different from that of those of his opposition who believe in the American Principle of a very limited, constitutional government whose only legitimate function is the protection of individual rights.

Those of us who believe in the American Principle readily acknowledge that we owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to those Americans who came before us and gave us a government that was at one time limited in scope and largely protective of individual liberty.  We are also grateful for those many productive Americans who made our society wealthy, robust, innovative, founded on mutual trust, reasonably benevolent, and comparatively independent-minded.  We have long had a society that expected Americans to be self-managers of their own lives and to live their lives responsibly.  There are tremendous benefits to all of us from this.  This is a society in which people have largely been able to reap many benefits from their accomplishments and productive work, while providing rich benefits to all of the rest of us in our society.

Our society has largely been based on a robust and rich private sector in which individuals were free to choose their own values and to associate freely with others of their own choice to pursue those values.  We have been a trader society which operates on the principle of voluntary exchanges of ideas, goods, and services.  I, for instance, could not operate without the many vendors who make and supply replacement parts for my laboratory equipment.  I am very grateful to them for offering me that critical service.  But, I also pay them well for providing that equipment and the replacement parts.  My customers pay for my services because I identity the causes of their materials problems and can often suggest how they can prevent the problem.  They are able to make more money because of the service I provide them.  But, our largely private sector society of free trade and associations provides the very mechanisms that allow us to acknowledge in appropriate ways the debts we have to others who supply us with valuable ideas, goods, and services.

Obama wants to eliminate this voluntary trade and association.  He wants to kill the very mechanisms we have for acknowledging the value of the ideas, goods, and services that others in our society offer us.  He wants hordes of government central planners to choose our values for us and impose them upon us using the full force of government.  He says that because we have reaped some benefits from others and from having government, that we owe it to government to build it up even more.  This Obama prescription is the equivalent of the argument that if taking one aspirin for a headache is good, then taking 100 aspirins for that headache is better.  Or if drinking 8 ounces of water now is good, then pouring 10 gallons of water down your throat now is better.  There are many things which have an appropriate level, which when exceeded begin to cause harm and when greatly exceeded cause great harm.  Obama's argument is shear sophistry.  It is wifty logic.

I see that the spell checker does not recognize wifty.  OK, Obama has a great propensity for ditzy logic, which unfortunately works for many Americans today.  Apparently, that is the outcome of government-run schools that want to produce suitable subjects for a socialist tyrannical government.  The biggest ditz of them all, the perfect product of this educational system promoting socialism, is Obama.

Good is done when two or more people agree upon a voluntary exchange.  This may be in business or it may be in a non-commercial endeavor.  What is good for each of us is very different and we work out the complex evaluations of good in accordance with our personal values in the private sector.  While limited government is essential for the purpose of securing our individual rights, larger government can only compromise the individual values of most of us most of the time.  As government grows beyond its legitimate rights protecting function, it necessarily becomes an individual rights violator.  Government cannot do the complex calculus which 310 million Americans do in living and managing their own lives on a completely voluntary basis with others in all things with which government is not involved.  Of course, that assumes that government would even want to do good for each of us if it could.  The history of big governments in all times and places indicates that they do not want to do such good.  Good government, like good doctors, first does no harm.

The Missing Jobs in June 2012 are Unchanged from June 2010

This is the monthly update on the real unemployment situation in the USA based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics June 2012 Household Survey Jobs Data.  The data I will use will not be seasonally adjusted, so we will need to compare June of this year with the unemployment of June 2010 and June 2011 to see if any jobs recovery has occurred.  We will also calculate the number of missing jobs based upon the percentage of the jobs wanted in January 2000 relative to the working age civilian population available for work.  This excludes people in jail or in institutions for those in ill health.

The recent history of missing jobs is given in the following chart:

The number of missing jobs in June 2012 is slightly lower than the number of missing jobs in June 2011, but it is slightly higher than the number of missing jobs in June 2010.  Just as with every other month so far this year, if we compare the number of missing jobs to the same month a year and two years earlier, we find that essentially nothing has changed.

In contrast, the usual unemployment rate of June 2010 was 9.62%.  It fell to 9.32% by June 2011 and still further to the June 2012 rate of 8.43%.  But, this number means little due to the ever-increasing number of discouraged job seekers.  The number of the reported unemployed fell from June 2010 to June 2011 and again to June 2012.  The number of people employed also grew from June to June to June in that time.  However, the population of working age civilians also grew, so that the 12.80% of missing jobs in June 2010 had actually increased by June 2011 to 13.30%, before falling in June 2012 to almost the same percentage as in June 2010 at 12.74%.  A 0.06% decrease in the number of missing jobs in the last two years is no job recovery at all.  This has been the story consistently for the last two and half years.

The policies of the Obama administration are so wrongheaded that they have done great damage to the private sector economy and kept companies from hiring.  Government can do little to effectively increase hiring, but it is excellently capable of destroying jobs and keeping new jobs from being created.  Obama and his Democratic Socialist Party leadership have been working overtime finding ways to make the future ever more uncertain for business and in making labor so expensive that business cannot afford to hire.

John C. Goodman, CEO of the National Center for Policy Analysis, recently testified in the House of Representatives that ObamaUncaringTax will increase the cost of an employee by $6/hour.  The EPA is causing sizable increases in our electricity costs and a decrease in electricity reliability, which will cause great harm to many businesses and will reduce the money individuals can spend on other goods and services.  Many state governments are contributing to this problem with their mandates that green energy replace fossil fuels in the electricity supply of their state.  Despite a huge supply of oil and gas in the United States, the Obama administration has done everything it can to prevent the development of new fields on federal land and offshore.  The Dodd-Frank law has created great uncertainty and it has kept financial institutions from loaning to small businesses.  Obama and his union henchmen have interfered with employer-employee relations to the detriment of business.  The looming taxes of the ObamaUncaringTax will take a huge toll, which include a tax surcharge on individuals with higher incomes and on corporations, in addition to the penalty taxes.  This punitive taxation of higher income individuals is not enough for Obama and he wants to eliminate their low percentage decrease part of the Bush tax cuts.  All this is happening in the face of the start of the Baby Boomer retirements and the continued collapse of the housing market.

Of course business is not hiring enough people to get Americans back to work with a jobs recovery to this never-ending recession.  With Obama destroying the business climate, nothing will change and nothing will change Obama.  He is a dyed-in-the-wool socialist.  He is fundamentally anti-business, with the exception of those who generously support his campaign fund.  Even then many of those companies have found him unbelievably treacherous.  The only hope for our economy and for Americans who want to be able to earn a living is the replacement of Obama with Romney.

Back-Radiation and the Highly Fallacious Kiehl-Trenberth Energy Budget

The usual greenhouse gas calculation such as is offered up by the various Trenberth diagrams is highly dominated by the radiative transport of energy in the Earth’s atmosphere.  It leads to an unreasonable result for the situation I am going to describe here.

But first, my approach to the back-radiation problem was always to show that it was unrealistic on many levels.  One cannot make a net gain of heat energy in a surface by returning a portion of the energy lost from a surface to it.  This is especially true of any process that is said to lose half of the surface emitted energy to space immediately and to only re-absorb some part of half of the energy that was returned to the surface.  I went further and explained that only a small fraction of the energy emitted as radiation from the surface was re-emitted as radiation from an absorbing water or CO2 molecule.  With just these considerations alone, the upper limit on once radiated energy from the surface which is re-absorbed by the surface would be:

(0.5) f,

where the 0.5 is the half of any IR absorbing molecule radiation which was not radiated into space and is radiated toward the surface.  The fraction f is the fraction of the IR energy lost by the surface and absorbed by an IR absorbing molecule which is re-emitted before collisions have dissipated the energy absorbed.  The fraction f is much less than one because most often the IR absorbing molecule undergoes collisions with other molecules and transfers much of the IR absorbed energy to other molecules before re-emission occurs.  These other molecules are rarely water or CO2 or other IR emitting molecules, so that energy is not returned to the surface as IR radiation.  Thus much of the surface emitted IR radiation is dissipated to the 99.97% of the atmosphere molecules which are nitrogen, oxygen, or argon and are not IR emitters.

Let us estimate the value of f.  At sea level, the mean gas velocity is 459 m/s, the mean free path or distance between collisions is only 6.6 x 10^-8 m or 66 nm, and the collision frequency is 6.9 billion/s.  At an altitude of about 4000 m, the radiative transfer of energy competes about evenly with transfer by collisions.  At 4000 m altitude, the frequency of gas molecule collisions is about 4.4 billion/s.  We can use the equivalency of energy transfer by radiation and gas molecule collisions at the 4000 meter altitude to estimate the fraction of energy transfer by radiation of the total of energy transferred by radiation plus gas molecule collisions. At sea level, energy transfer by radiation is equivalent to about 4.4 x 109 collisions per second, so the fraction of energy transferred by radiation is about 4.4/(4.4 + 6.9) = 0.39 of the total by gas molecule collisions and radiation.  This suggests that about 1.5 times as much energy is transferred by gas collisions as by radiation at sea level.

So at this point, the upper limit on IR radiation emitted from the surface which can be returned to the surface and absorbed by it is about:

(0.5) (0.39) = 0.195

It also has to be remembered that this is the upper limit for that portion of the IR radiation from the surface which can be absorbed by an IR-absorbing molecule such as water or CO2.  Much of the surface-emitted IR radiation is of such wavelengths that no IR-absorbing molecule can absorb it in the first place.  If one takes this fact into account, the 0.195 upper limit is a hugely generous upper limit.

But, it does not follow that simply because this much back-radiated IR is incident upon the surface that it will be absorbed by the surface.  During the roughly 8 hours of a day when the surface is warming under increasing sunlight and with a 2-hour lag for warming the ground, water, or air in a vicinity, none of this radiation may be absorbed, except when a cloud casts a shadow on a part of the area or at such points under the shadow of a tree of some such object.  The absorbing ground has to be cooler than the ground from which the photon was emitted and subsequently absorbed by an IR-absorbing molecule in the atmosphere.  During the remaining cooling hours of the day, roughly 16 hours, the surface is more likely to absorb such back-radiated energy.  As a mean value for re-absorption of IR back-radiation over the daily cycle, the value of 0.95 is often used.  I believe that value is much too high.

Let us look at one of the Kiehl-Trenberth energy budgets for a moment:

According to this diagram, 67/ 342 = 0.196 of the incoming solar radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere.  77/342 = 0.225 is reflected by clouds and aerosols.  The surface reflects 30/(30 + 168) = 0.152 of the solar radiation incident upon the surface.  Thermals cooling the surface dissipate 24/168 = 0.143 of this incident radiation.  Let us note that the surface emits a flux of 390 W/m^2 of IR radiation and according to this diagram the atmosphere has absorbed a highly efficient 324 W/m^2 of this or 83.1% of this.  Yet, above I showed in very simple terms that 19.5% is more than the upper limit by far of the amount of IR radiation that the atmosphere can return, which is not from IR-absorbing gas molecules that are substantially cooler than the Earth's surface.

Now let us consider a midday calculation of the surface and do so where there is no cloud cover and where it is so dry that there is no evapotranspiration.  What kind of surface temperature will we have.  Since there are no clouds and I think clouds are the better part of the summed cloud and aerosol effect, let us assume the aerosol effect alone is 0.08.  The midday radiation incident on the upper atmosphere is 1367 W/m^2.  Note that at midday, the incident radiation path length through the atmosphere is shorter than it is for the average daily values normally used, so losses in the atmosphere should be lower than these numbers.  I will use them nonetheless.

The radiation upon the ground is then:

(1 - 0.196) (1- 0.08) (1 - 0.152) (1 - 0.143) 1367 W/m^2 = 734.8 W/m^2

The ground temperature is then found from:

734.8 W/m^2 = ε σ T^4,  ε = 0.95

T = 341.8 K = 68.6̊C = 155.5̊F

But if you believe that the upper limit amount of back-radiation is 95% absorbed by the surface, then the incident radiation is:

(734.8 W/m^2) (1 + 0.195(0.95)) = 870.9 W/m^2

T = 356.6 K = 83.4̊C = 182.2̊F

Now this is clearly much too hot and implies that even the addition of this upper limit of back-radiation which is much smaller than the back-radiation in the Kiehl-Trenberth diagram and energy budget is not physical.  In reality, air convection or thermal effects are more important in cooling the surface than the Kiehl-Trenberth energy budget allows for.  The same is true of water evaporation, transport, and condensation effects.

Note that I did not follow the Kiehl-Trenberth diagram in subtracting the emitted radiation that corresponds to the Earth’s surface temperature.  They subtract 390 W/m^2 and add back in 324 W/m^2 of back-radiation for their mean daily calculation.  This would imply that if we had no atmosphere with IR absorbing gases in it, then there would be no back-radiation, so the total energy budget would look like:

(168 - 24 - 78 - 390) W/m^2 = -324 W/m^2,

which is nonsense.  Of course you might say that the thermals would be different and if I have no absorbing IR gases, then I certainly do not have water evaporation and movement.  This perhaps is a muddled situation.

So let us consider the equivalent calculation technique for an isolated black body radiator in space with incident energy flux of Ii and an emitted radiation of Ie.  But Ii = Ie, so then this approach would have us fallaciously conclude that

Ii - Ie = 0 = σ T^4 and T = 0 K.

The temperature of the isolated black (or gray) body is determined by the incident radiation on it.  The basic approach of the Kiehl-Trenberth diagram to radiation is nonsense.  The energy budget is a farce based on bad physics.  Indeed, when challenged on this issue, many proponents of man-made catastrophic global warming back down and say that the General Circulation Models are calculated primarily as air and water vapor circulation models and are not really consistent with the several variations of the Kiehl-Trenberth Energy Budget.  Yet it is such fallacious energy budgets that the public has been fed as the basis for the claim that there are substantial effects on the Earth's surface temperature due to man's emissions of CO2.  Government websites have been full of these energy budgets, as have college classes.  For their part, the range of results in the GCM computer models is too large to be consistent with the idea that climate science is settled and everyone agrees that it is understood.

ObamaCare: No Due Process, Unconstitutional Tax

It is said that the 5-4 Supreme Court decision that ObamaCare is constitutional in NFIB v. Sebelius provided that the penalty for not buying the expensive health insurance plan mandated by the government is redesignated a tax, is not entirely bad because by a 7-2 decision the court decided that ObamaCare was unconstitutional under a basis provided by either the Commerce Clause or the Necessary and Proper Clause.  It is now well-established that there are some limits to the powers granted the government by these other clauses of the Constitution, which had been the primary basis for the Obama administration claim that ObamaCare was constitutional.  The law was held to be constitutional as re-written by Chief Justice Roberts.

Nonetheless, the Supreme Court declared a highly unconstitutional law to be constitutional, as it has long had a tendency to do.  It has violated the fundamental American Principle that forms the foundation for the purpose and function of the government which the Constitution mandated as the will of the People.  The Constitution written and signed by the members of the Constitutional Convention in 1787 and which went into effect after 9 states had approved it in 1789, was a reformation of the government of the United States of America.

The United States of American began with the Declaration of Independence, signed 2 July 1776 and announced publicly on 4 July 1776.  The Declaration of Independence had proclaimed that every individual has an equal and inalienable (or sovereign) right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  It was understood that these individual rights were not granted by government and that they resided in each individual man by virtue of his nature.  Individual human rights included the right to property.  The most important property each man held was his own body and mind and his labor.  The Declaration of Independence decreed that any government that violated an individual's rights was illegitimate.  Government should have as its purpose and sole function the protection of individual rights.

This American Principle of highly limited government devoted to the protection of the rights of the individual, was the basis for the government mandated by the People in the Constitution for the same United States of America which took effect in 1789.  The continuation of our government in a new form did not result in an abrogation of the Treaty of Paris, signed in 1783, which ended the American Revolutionary War and created a number of agreements which the Great Britain had still not fulfilled in 1789.  President Washington continued to try to hold the British to those requirements of the Treaty of Paris.  We were not a new country in 1789 and we still owed our existence and our birth as a nation to the Declaration of Independence.  While the powers given to the government by the Constitution were thought by many to be so restricted and limited that the government could not pose any threat to individual rights, most Americans worried so much about some future infringements that they demanded the Bill of Rights as a condition of their approving the Constitution.  The People then thought the Constitution with its Bill of Rights was a clear mandate for a government that could not violate our sovereign individual rights.

It was well-understood that government, while needed to protect individual rights, was also very inclined to add to its powers until government became the primary violator of individual rights.  Such is the case in the United States of America today.  The federal courts have neglected the context in making decisions of law generally and constitutional law in particular that is provided by the foundational  American Principle.  Without the repeated and constant guidance of that principle, long strings of court cases were decided and precedent was established which provided government with more and more of the additional powers it desired, but which caused government to become the primary violator of individual rights in the USA today.  Such unguided and out-of-context decisions greatly expanded the powers of government by expanding the scope of the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the power to tax without regard to the effect upon our individual rights.  As a result, Congress was under the impression when it passed ObamaCare that these clauses of the Constitution gave it the power to do almost anything it chose to do.

Precedent is important and helps people to understand the law and its interpretations and to prevent sudden interpretation changes.  This is true only if those precedents were established in a manner consistent with the American Principle, however.  In our case decisions too often have not been consistent.  Any interpretation of the Constitution or of any law deemed to be constitutional, must be consistent with the requirement that legitimate government cannot violate individual rights.  It is the American Principle that makes the United States of America exceptional among nations and which legitimately causes a freedom-loving People to admire what they once had here in the United States of America.


ObamaCare: Due Process Failure

From early in the legislative process to create ObamaCare, the American People have been deprived of due process in this law which will have very drastic effects upon our lives and the exercise of their rights.  I have discussed many of these in the past and the present 5-4 Supreme Court decision has added to the list of due process failures.  The following is a list of many of these due process failures:

• The name of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is a misrepresentation of the act.  It was always clear it would make health care more expensive for almost everyone and that the quality of healthcare would suffer for most people.  The act was a fraud perpetrated upon the People, so they were less likely to bring appropriate pressure upon their elected representatives to oppose its passage and protect their individual rights.
• The principal effect of ObamaCare was to turn ownership of every individual's body and the mental health of their minds to the collective in the most direct and obvious violation of individual rights.  The intent of the law was to force individuals to buy a more expensive and comprehensive insurance policy than most need as an individual so that free-riders could not game the government intrusion into the health care system that already controlled half of that marketplace.  It was also so that a very small fraction of people with pre-existing conditions could get health insurance.  But, neither the plight of a few people with pre-existing conditions nor some free-riders, could justify any constitutional judgment that ObamaCare was an act of legitimate government.  Clearly, most people were going to suffer a real and important loss of their ability to manage their own lives, decide how to protect their health, and were going to suffer a loss of happiness while forced to wait in pain for long periods to see overworked, underpaid, and angry doctors whose medical skills and equipment were going to suffer degradations relative to the free market alternative.
• Each of our elected representatives and the President have an obligation recognized in their oath of office to protect the Constitution.  They are clearly in violation of this oath every time they vote for or sign into law a bill which they have not read.  This is a major violation of due process and should be recognized as such.  The votes of any Senator or Representative who did not read the bill and properly judge whether it was constitutional or not are invalid votes.  This being the case, the bill did not pass either the House or the Senate legitimately and with due process.
• Many additional effects of the law were misrepresented. It was claimed over and over that if one liked one's present health care insurance plan, one could keep it.  The law clearly did not allow this.  It was said over and over that the panels that would decide what medical care would be provided to whom, were not Death Panels, and yet these same panels are declaring that many life-saving operations previously provided to those 70 and over will no longer be offered or provided.  The same will be true of newborn infants.  Life or death will be decided by these panels, but we cannot recognize that function!  Fraud once again was practiced to ease the passage of this law, which barely did so.  Perhaps some Senators and Representatives were fooled by these fallacious claims and would not have voted for the bill had they known.
• Tax bills must originate from the House of Representatives.  This bill is full of new taxes, even prior to the Supreme Court ruling that the penalty is really a tax.  This bill did not originate in the House.  H.R. 3590 was a bill called Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009 which was passed by the House, whose name and content was completely changed by Senator Harry Reid and turned into the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.  This was a transparent violation of the Origination Clause requiring revenue bills to come from the House.  Chief Justice Roberts chose to take no notice of this constitutional violation, though the dissenting opinion did note it.
• ObamaCare is essentially a huge outline of a bill which ceded the responsibility of the Congress to write bills in large part to agencies under the Executive Branch who are writing or have written thousands of pages of rules and regulations to implement ObamaCare which Congress has not reviewed in fulfillment of its constitutional duty.  These Executive Branch agencies and cabinet departments are not constitutional allowed to establish laws.
• Tax laws cannot be reviewed by the Federal Courts until the taxes in them take effect.  This case was reviewed by the Supreme Court and allowed to stand even as that court claimed that the huge penalties of the bill were taxes.  Those taxes are not yet being assessed, so this bill should not have been reviewed under due process at this time.  The fact that the decision was rendered is in direct contradiction of the decision that the penalty is a tax.
• The bill claims the penalties for not buying the government mandated health payment plans are not taxes.  The American people were told by many Senators, Congressmen, and the President that they were not taxes.  Indeed, the purpose of a tax is to raise revenue, while that of a penalty is to compel behavior.  This compelling of behavior was the aim of the ObamaCare bill.  Justice Roberts says the tax is not high enough to force anyone to buy ObamaCare health insurance, so it does not compel behavior, so it is not a penalty.  This is a tortured viewpoint.  Since the majority of the Supreme Court now says they are taxes, even if this bill had been passed by Congress and signed into law under due process, that due process would have been forfeit now.  The Supreme Court is not authorized by the Constitution to create new legislation on its own as it just did.  Laws are made in Congress, which has the first pass on deciding whether a law is constitutional or not.  Then the President has an opportunity to veto a bill if he thinks it is unconstitutional.

ObamaCare is Now an Unconstitutional Tax

Chief Justice Roberts and the four radical leftists on the Supreme Court redesignated the penalty for not buying a particular prescribed government health "insurance" policy at an elevated cost largely dictated by conditions of inclusion set by the government to be a tax.  This tax is a direct tax and has not been apportioned among the states as required by Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution:

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

This means that any direct tax can only be levied upon a state in proportion to its population.  Presumably an income tax would be based on all income in the U.S. and each state would be required to provide a tax in proportion to its state population.  If the federal government decided that tax on income was to be 20%, then the tax to be collect would be (0.2) I, where I is the total national income.  If a particular state has a population which is equal to 2% of the national population, then it has to provide income tax revenue in its state of (0.02)(0.2) I to the federal government.  This makes it constitutionally impossible for the federal government to levy a progressive direct income tax and it means the tax in a given state will not be in the same proportion as income in that state.

The 16th Amendment seems to most Americans today to have created an exception to this injunction against direct taxes for the specific case of income taxes.  This was not so, because at the time this amendment was passed, income was considered to be, and was affirmed as such by the Supreme Court in Eisner v. Macomber in 1918 and in Merchants Loan and Trust v. Smietanka in 1921 to be the profit a corporation made.  In earlier decisions, Pollock v. Farmer's Loan and Trust (1895) and Brushaber v. Union Pacific Rail Road (1916), the Supreme Court had ruled that to be an indirect tax, income had to be separated from its source.  If a corporation was paid rent money for a building it owned, it had to subtract its expenses for renting the building and this established separation from the source of the income.  The tax on the profit from the rental was an indirect tax.

The rulings of the Supreme Court make it clear that a so-called income tax levied upon an individual's salary, wages, tips, commissions, and bonuses are direct taxes and are prohibited by the Constitution.  These direct payments belong to the individual as a matter of right, because his labor is his property by right.  Despite such payments not having been considered to be income in 1913 when the Income Tax Amendment was approved, the Supreme Court has never since these early cases taken up the protection of the individual right to payment for one's labor.  The government now taxes these payments without separation and without subtracting expenses in clear violation of the individual right to one's own labor and its fruits.  One might say the Supreme Court did for the income tax what it has just done for ObamaCare.  It found a limited way for it to be started and then never re-examined those situations it said were unconstitutional.

In a completely specious argument, Chief Justice Roberts claimed the penalty was a tax since it was not levied on most people.  The fraction of the population upon which a tax is levied has nothing at all to do with its being direct or indirect. 

Justice Roberts said that a tax that forced Americans to buy the government prescribed health insurance would be unconstitutional.  He said a penalty high enough to do so would be unconstitutional.  But, he says since the present tax is too low to compel Americans to buy health insurance, it is constitutional.  If this law is not soon repealed, it will fail because too many Americans will pay the tax rather than buy the more expensive health payment plan.  Future Congresses will then raise the tax until individuals are compelled to buy the health payment plan and then by Roberts' decision the law will be unconstitutional.

But will the Supreme Court actually review such a law and declare it unconstitutional?  Based on the precedent of the income tax, no.  But the reasoning offered by Roberts and the majority is very specious and very flimsy.  It begs to be reversed.  It is no wonder the dissenting Justices are very unhappy about this decision.  This decision has brought great disdain upon the Supreme Court majority by those who value reason and expect it to be valued by the Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court has once again failed to protect the sovereign rights of the individual to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.